David Cameron is frequently accused of running a meaningless government, lacking urgency and being far too cautious. These charges of inertia – constantly levelled by the Right – are unfair. In truth the Prime Minister is leading what may yet come to be seen as one of the most remarkable reforming governments of modern history.

On welfare, on education, on health and even (up to a certain point) on the economy, Cabinet ministers have embarked on ambitious change. Many of these changes are, furthermore, emphatically Conservative in vision and inspiration.

At education, for example, Michael Gove is seeking to reintroduce high standards, discipline, respect for knowledge and a sense of history into British schools, to the horror and dismay of the trade unions and the progressive Left.

Equality of opportunity is at the heart of Mr Gove’s great package of reforms. He is determined that a child from a deprived background should have the same life chances as anyone else – another idea that is utterly repugnant to the Left, which values mediocrity and places the producer interest first.

So it is absurd to criticise Mr Cameron’s government for being too cautious and consensual. If anything this admirably radical administration deserves criticism for doing too much. In its urgent ambition to leave an enduring mark on society, it is arguably in danger of trying to make too many changes at once.

But there is also a deeper criticism. There are too many radicals at the heart of the Cameron government – and not enough Conservatives. These radicals fail to share the Conservative insight that continuity matters more than change, and stability more than either.

Conservatives understand that there is a great deal to be said for leaving things alone. They respect the wisdom of the past, the necessity to preserve inherited institutions, and the rule of law.

This is the reason we Conservatives, contrary to popular opinion, value a strong state, so long as it is virtuous and not corrupt. We do not (as many believe) merely value a powerful state for purposes of national defence and to uphold law and order. All serious Conservative thinkers grasp that only the state can embody all those ideals which bind us together, and which count for so much more than mere self-interest.

Conservatives are also suspicious of the marketplace. Of course we understand that there are many activities that markets carry out far better than the state, like selling insurance or making cars. But this understanding of the limits of state endeavour is accompanied by our understanding of the importance of a public domain, which is independent of both state and market place.

The justice system, universities, schools and wider civil society (what David Cameron calls the Big Society, a theme he returns to all too rarely) belong to this public domain. Conservative political theorists have sometimes found difficulty in resolving the paradox that this complex civil society (which saves us from totalitarianism) ultimately needs the power of the state to defend it.

This is not merely a problem for theorists. The radicals and modernisers who run this Coalition Government also find it hard to grasp. Over the past few weeks ministers have launched a series of very carefully prepared assaults on exactly the British institutions they should, as Conservatives, be defending.

These have been cheered on by radicals who relish change and celebrate efficiency. These changes are so radical, indeed, that none of them should ever have been contemplated by a Conservative government.

The first of these is an assault, led by Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude, on the long-standing political neutrality of the Civil Service. For a century and a half, Whitehall impartiality has been at the heart of the British system of government.

The Civil Service has been ready to work, with equal loyalty, for any democratically elected government: for Clem Attlee’s nationalising Labour from 1945-51 as much as Margaret Thatcher’s privatising Tories from 1979-90.

Mr Maude, acting on behalf of David Cameron, wants ministers to choose the permanent secretaries who run their departments. This means smashing the central idea that officials should earn promotion on merit. It also means bringing back the nepotism, partisanship and jobbery which were such an obtrusive feature of British government in the 18th century.

Effectively Mr Maude wants to remove the Civil Service from the public domain, and put it under the control of political (and in some cases private) interests. Indeed the process has started already. In an extraordinary and unprecedented development, 18 out of 20 permanent secretaries have quit their departments since the 2010 general election.

This is a scandal. One of the two survivors, Jonathan Stephens from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, has reportedly just been forced out by Culture Secretary Maria Miller – he leaves in July. In recent weeks Mr Stephens (who was responsible for the Olympics, one of the most successful government projects of all time) has been the subject of a vicious briefing campaign against him in the press. It is beyond belief that this low conduct could occur under a Conservative government.

The deliberate diminution of the Civil Service has been accompanied by a targeted assault on the rule of law, led by the ambitious Justice Secretary (and Lord Chancellor) Chris Grayling. Mr Grayling, the first Lord Chancellor not to be a lawyer since the post was invented eight centuries ago, is guilty of a similar confusion to Francis Maude. Through his legal reforms he is seeking to ally the system of justice, which properly belongs in the public domain, with the values of the marketplace.

The result is horrible. After Mr Grayling has done his work justice will continue to be available, at a stiff price, for the very rich. As far as normal people are concerned it will either not be available at all, or only as contracted out as an undifferentiated commodity by large private sector companies (the Eddie Stobart haulage company has reportedly shown an interest).

Meanwhile Frances Gibb, legal editor of The Times, reports that Mr Grayling is examining plans for the privatisation of the law courts. This report (which has been denied by Mr Grayling but looks plausible) is deeply worrying. As any Conservative should understand, law courts ought to be run as a public institution. Justice only for the very rich or well-connected is a fact of life in Obama’s United States or Putin’s Russia. It shouldn’t happen in Conservative Britain.

In ways its critics have repeatedly failed to grasp, this Coalition is brave and admirable in so many respects. But David Cameron appears to have inherited from Tony Blair a crashing contempt for the British constitution and system of government – and seems determined to follow Mr Blair in trashing the traditional integrity and fairness that has stood at the heart of our public life for so long. It’s time the Prime Minister stood up for Conservative values and spelt out to his modernising ministers the importance of letting sleeping dogs lie.